Well done. As one who's complained about the last couple of iterations of the test target, I think you finally have it right. I particularly like the tungsten light option. It was a good choice to use a household bulb on one side to create the fall off. It's just the the kind real-life condition we need to evaluate. I also like having a medium format reference shot. Might you consider including Hasseblad multishot (200 megapixel) back as well? I've often thought it would be useful to have the current resolution champ (whatever that may be) as a reference that could be automatically down sampled to any camera in the data base, but that may be too much to ask for. : )
rich889: the point of the comparison scene is to COMPARE between cameras across the board, OLD AND NEW. The most logical way to do that is to expand the current scene rather than delete it and start with a clean slate.
My comments when the previous test target was introduced in 2009:
"it's unfortunate that you didn't take this opportunity to make a clean break with the past and start and over with an attractive, coherent arrangement of objects that would not only be pleasing to look at in detail, but would put far greater demands on cameras."
"I think your new set should have been wider and shallower so that aperture was not a big factor. You should also have consulted an experienced prop stylist, still life photographer, or set designer so we would have something attractive to look at and you would have something less dreary with which to do your painstaking tests".
Three years later you have adopted all but the suggestion of making the scene more coherent and attractive. The flat lighting is unfortunate too. Two steps forward, one giant step back.